Disclaimer: the posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Friday, June 07, 2013

GAY PARENTS

Photo: Dallas Kilponen

Kids with gay parents have 'significantly better' general health and greater family cohesion than those with heterosexual parents.

This is according to new research in Australia.

The researchers at the University of Melbourne, in Australia, studied 500 children aged between one and 17.

Of the 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents involved, 80 per cent were women.

As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 children in the United States live in households headed by same-sex couples.

Families led by a same-sex couple tend to have greater family cohesion.

The Australian researchers found that for general health and family cohesion children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex parents showed a significantly better score when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts.

The children of same-sex couples scored so much higher for general health that researchers said it would only occur by chance less than 1 in 10,000 times.

For self-esteem and emotional behaviour, there were no statistically significant differences.

14 comments:

Anonymous
said...

This is not surprising, surely. Gay parents do not find themselves parents by accident as a large percentage of heterosexual people do. The planning that does into becoming a parent must be akin to the planning of a wedding. How do the children of married parents compare with the children of gay parents. Do we have the figures for that?

The research is nothing new. Since always, the "traditional" families have been those inside which most abuses have taken place. No need to detail. It doesnt mean gay couples with kids are heaven, but certainly they are better. Loving parents are loving parents regardless of their sexual orientation, end of story.

"To date there is no substantial research looking at the health and wellbeing of children residing from birth with gay male parents and conclusions cannot therefore be drawn about their health and wellbeing in this setting.""Mothers are more emotionally invested in raising children than fathers are in general, which has been supported by other authors"

"Primarily recruitment will be through emails posted on gay and lesbian community email lists aimed at same-sex parenting. This will include, but not be limited to, Gay Dads Australia and the Rainbow Families Council of Victoria. Any parent over the age of 18 years, who self-identifies as being same-sex attracted, lives in Australia, and has children under 18 years of age will be eligible to participate in the study."So they gave the parents (mainly women, often bisexual) a list of questions.Are you surprised homosexual and lesbian activists would give favourable answers ?

Unfortunately science today is mainly a propaganda and brainwashing tool, corruption is the norm, with a strong orthodoxy ruling out any independent thought or research.

Real research is being conducted in secret and key technology and knowledge and truth withheld for decades.

"What would you do if you had a million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?"Rockefeller's Frederick T. Gates, 1911Rockefeller Medicine Men - Medicine and Capitalism in America (Brown 1979)

"The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own "nominees" planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. So the stage was set for the "education" of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media-makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters - then and even more recklessly now."http://whale.to/b/ruesch.html

I disagree with you here. While it is certainly sensible that two loving mothers can more aptly engage in a child's life; I believe there to be more at stake here. The principal definition of marriage is to provide the support and structure needed to maintain procreation, which is and has been the institution that carries out this human responsibility. Along with the collapse of traditional marriage and the consequence aforementioned, is the collapse of traditional values that is helping tear the US society apart. This devious agenda of eroding necessary values that provided a moral backbone of the youth will only hurt our country in the long run.

"When we, through our educational culture, through the media, through the entertainment culture, give our children the impression that human beings cannot control their passions, we are telling them, in effect, that human beings cannot be trusted with freedom."

Could be a close contender for worst article on the Internet. What is their standard for "self-esteem and emotional behavior"? This is a world now where normal, natural childhood behavior is regarded as mental illness and needs drugging. So I'm guessing the kids in the study answered all the left-wing questions with the proper buzzwords. Well done, little zombies!

I'm getting pretty sick to death of "a recent study shows." "A recent study" will show anything the researchers want it to show.

You have to admit Aang that that last link had a solid point. One has to wonder if this poll's advertising in gay magazines etc. didn't function along the lines of megaphone and skew the numbers, ie. same-sex couples with bad parenting skills chose not to participate. It's possible that this didn't happen but with their methodology who can tell?

On topics such as this I'm generally inclined to take the long view. Which is to say, if all of man's time on earth was a clock, what did humans do for the first fifty nine minutes and fifty nine seconds rather than the last second, ie. the last few thousand years of settlement and civilization? To that end I eat a paleo-diet (which my stomach thanks me for).

And even within that relative evolutionary blink-of-an-eye that is the last couple of millennia what percentage of that (whether in time or numbers) have same sex couples been raising children? We're now into an abjectly small number and from which we can draw no great conclusion.

I hope you understand I'm making a fine point here. Whilst it's entirely possible that same-sex couples can be brilliant parents it's clearly overstepping the mark to be touting this as meaningful in any bigger picture. The only thing a successful same-sex couple can say is 'What we do works'.

Their 'success' (I only use the term for want of something better) says less about their being same sex than it does about them as individuals.

And yes this is also true of standard heterosexual couples. I know some who are brilliant parents and some who are shockers. The woman I wanted to marry, an 'ex' lesbian, and I had this argument before and she made the point that heterosexual couples are a crapshoot anyway. And she's got a point.

But evolutionarily it's what our heads are used to. The logic that applies to having a male father and a female mother is the logic that applies to breast milk (say). And no, one doesn't have to have breast milk and one doesn't have to have a mother and father. But that's not the point. The point is that it has made us who we are.

And one can decry who we are but, gee whiz... where do you go with that? And to what end? And with what hope of victory?

The only thing that can be said of same-sex parenting is that it can work. Anything beyond this is, a) an overstatement and, b) an expression of insecurity. And I understand why this insecurity exists, ie. same-sex couples feel beset, but that doesn't alter the fact.

There's serenity, and then there's marching up and down banging a drum. You know what I mean?